ARTICLE: Enough NRA Bashing!

who's bashing whom?

Isn't it ironic that NRA-ILA won't even publicly acknowledge the existence of another pro 2nd .org, but will recognize an anti organization?

There's a difference between bashing and the constructive criticism rightly leveled at NRA-ILA for their support of this bill. ILA is suffering from a credibility deficity because far too many grassroots lobbyists have been let down (harsher language than THR allows would be more accurate) by ILA at some point. This, plus the ability in the internet age to actually read the bill has prompted folks to question the wisdom of this legislation. There have been numerous posting of ILA vowing to overturn the May 19, 1986 and after ban on new machine gun ownership. Results?

How about for supporting someone bearing arms (that would be open carrying, not concealed)?

Don't get me wrong, NRA-ILA does do a lot of good and I find myself aligned with them more often than against or without their support. Nevertheless, this issue is worthy of spirited and vociferous debate. Surely the NRA-ILA as the largest pro 2A organization and the oldest civil rights organization would honor those who wish to speak on this issue, rather than suppress and minimalize dissent? Surely advocates of this bill should be willing to engage in debate about the pros and cons of it's particulars and not stifle views that aren't in step with "party line".

"If you can't stand the heat... Get out of the kitchen!"

Couldn't agree more. GOA lost of lot of cred with me when they blatantly misrepresented the bill in question. I figure they did it to try to win membership at the expense of the NRA.

Dumb.

K

I let my GOA membership lapse. Their "All Or Nothing" tactics are, politically speaking, useless. It may sooth the soul and bolster the emotions to rant, rave, and demand things in absolute terms, but it's less than worthless in the arena of public opinion. It creates the conditions that foster the problems you are trying to solve. You are, in a very real sense, creating your own problem.

I may not agree with the NRA or the NRA-ILA on 100% of what they do, but there is no denying they are darned effective lobbyists that know the value of giving a little to get a lot.

Brad

Internecine fighting isn't the exclusive territory of the NRA. Other organizations do it too. Currently, there is a case pending in Oregon that will determine whether or not public schools can prohibit teachers from carrying concealed pistols if they have a license. It is legal for CPL holders to carry in all public buildings including schools. Only county courthouses and federal buildings are off limits. I recently saw a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation crowing about how they have taken up the fight to secure this teacher's rights. Thing is, the Oregon Firearms Federation has been the organization that has been there from the beginning. The SAF's total contribution has been a check for $500. Now, every little bit helps, but to send a check and then paint your organization as the primary champion in this cause seems a little "low road" to me.

As for the NRA? The NRA's own Wayne LaPierre has stated that the NRA doesn't support guns being carried in schools by anyone but law enforcement. http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_wlp.asp

"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel." Wayne LaPierre


Until we can find common ground between all of the pro-gun forces and clarify what it is that we believe, the bickering between pro-gun organizations is why we will always be playing "catch up"

The NRA is not now, nor has it ever been about liberating us gun owners from the onerous and unconstitutional restrictions that have been placed on us. They are very much in favor of "reasonable" restrictions, they would just like to reduce the number of restrictions.

OTOH, the NRA has been pretty successful in the legislative arena, and very successful in the safety training area. Overall, I think they do quite well, even if they are imperfect. But, being as they (or rather "we", as I am a life member) are all human, we are bound to be imperfect.

Quite frankly, you can never please everyone.

I am also a member of GOA and I too am a little baffled at their opposition to this bill. It does not seem to change much at all, and what little change there is, seems to be minimal for the average LAC. But, maybe I missed something in looking it over.

There's a difference between bashing and the constructive criticism rightly leveled at NRA-ILA

Click to expand...

True ... and in these forums I'd say it goes about 8-1 bashing vs constructive criticism.

True ... and in these forums I'd say it goes about 8-1 bashing vs constructive criticism.

Click to expand...

People with an ax to grind tend to be more vocal.

We all have to remember that no person, no candidate, no organization is perfect, and take the good we can get where we can get it, and try and improve things where improvement is needed.

Smurfslayer, when you say "Isn't it ironic that NRA-ILA won't even publicly acknowledge the existence of another pro 2nd .org" are you aware that your statement is not true? It's your implication that's "ironic."

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is "another pro 2nd org" and quite a reputable one. The NRA not only "publicly acknowledges" the existence of SAF but those two "pro 2nd" organizations have cooperated in actions such as suits against the city of New Orleans for an injunction to stop its gun confiscations and to retrieve the confiscated guns for their owners.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) also is "another pro 2nd org." The NRA, SAF, CORE, and other "pro 2nd" organizations also filed amicus briefs in Parker v. District of Columbia, and it would be naive to think that each of those organizations acted without knowledge of the others.

The NRA, SAF, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) cooperated in lobbying for passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. CCRKBA and NSSF are still other "pro 2nd orgs."

The NRA, those reputable "pro 2nd orgs," and still others sponsor the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, now in its twenty-second year.

You would find many such instances of the NRA not only "publicly acknowledging" but also working with many "pro 2nd" organizations if you were of a mind to look for what's real instead of accepting Gun Owners of America's self-serving agenda.

Two things that all those "pro 2nd orgs" have in common is that they work towards accomplishing positive, achievable goals for gun owners and they can work together with mutual respect instead of making wildly destructive accusations that harm all gun owners for the reasons explained so well in that "Enough NRA Bashing!" article written by Evan F. Nappen and published on the Pro Gun New Hampshire web site.

What you meant, I think, is that the NRA doesn't "publicly acknowledge the existence" of Gun Owners of America. You're probably right. A great many gun owners don't like to acknowledge the existence of GOA either and wish it would just go away instead of continuing to cause untold damage to the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

In all that list I gave you of instances in which real "pro 2nd" organizations work together for positive gains by gun owners in the United States, Gun Owners of America did not participate in even one.

Here are many more real world instances in which the NRA supports "pro 2nd" litigation throughout the states, with funds from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Where in the world is GOA?

GOA did not file an amicus brief in Parker v. District. Check the long list of pleadings on the web site of Gura & Possessky, attorneys for Parker in that case: you'll see briefs by several real "pro 2nd" advocates but you won't see one by GOA. It's the most crucial case Second Amendment case to go before the U.S. Supreme Court in modern times but GOA did nothing to help.

Look at the pleadings in NRA, SAF, and Teel v. Nagin, New Orleans, et. al. The NRA is there. SAF is there. Question: what so-called "pro 2nd" organization isn't there and never even filed an amicus brief. Answer: Gun Owners of America.

Gun Owners of America does have a lawyer, of course: Mike Hammond, who styles himself "legislative counsel to GOA," but he seems too busy attacking the NRA and the current attempt to revise NICS to remove at least some of its excesses that have been hurting veterans and other gun owners since its beginning. That effort makes GOA enraged once again, with the usual result of dividing gun owners and making it harder for them to gain ground.

As for those voices that urge repeal of NICS right now, after public outrage after the Virginia Tech shootings and other school shootings, those voices do not come from the real world. In the real world, real people do not want lunatics and criminals to have guns and those real people--including many gun owners here--will backlash against those voices that attempt to argue otherwise.

Look at every item in the list I gave. Gun Owners of America is not in any of them. It can't work cooperatively with real "pro 2nd" groups because it depends for its very existence on attacking what they do. It's only effectiveness is as a spoiler, working through one "Urgent Alert!" after another to defeat the necessary steps by which real progress is made in the real world.

It would be sad to see NICS remain as it is, penalizing veterans and other gun owners for wrong and obsolete information and leaving them no way to remove or correct it. It will be even sadder if the NRA-inspired compromises included in the current revision are removed when the time comes for a recorded vote because the bill is not being allowed to pass on a voice vote. Voice votes are common when there is no controversy. They are not the Devil's invention and bills are not stopped because a voice vote is blocked. They can be passed with a recorded vote. They also can be revised before the vote. Surely no one but GOA members could believe that the Congress will consult with GOA to revise this bill before that belief. GOA destroys. It does not give life.

The reality is that if the NRA were to cease its existence tomorrow or become weakened by constant bashing, we would lose our ability to own and use firearms. It's the NRA that anti-gun forces attack because it's the NRA that stands between them and us. The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun forces don't attack GOA because they understand its insignificance as an opponent and benefit from its ability to divide gun owners and weaken the NRA. If GOA disappeared tomorrow, though, our Second Amendment rights would not be affected except for the better. Gun owners would not be subjected to its constant divisiveness. We still would disagree, because disagreements are inevitable among such a varied assembly of people, but a major corrosive element would have disappeared from those disagreements.

Could not agree more with the article.

Their "All Or Nothing" tactics are, politically speaking, useless. It may sooth the soul and bolster the emotions to rant, rave, and demand things in absolute terms, but it's less than worthless in the arena of public opinion. It creates the conditions that foster the problems you are trying to solve. You are, in a very real sense, creating your own problem.

Click to expand...

This pretty much summarizes GOA!

Many of the organizations have a constructive role to play. Some are "all or nothing" and some seek compromise in order to avoid something worse.

IMO, it is better to support both the NRA and some of the other orgs. If you agree with no compromise, get out a pen or word processor and send letters to legislators that will do the most good. And include the NRA to let them know where you (and your dues) stand.

Also IMO, given the tens of millions of hunters and shooters in the US that DO NOT either get involved or join the NRA, if you want the NRA to have sufficient clout to take a harder line successfully, get more of those unaffiliated shooters to join and be a part of the solution.

Quit bashing the NRA and help them get the clout to take a bolder stance. Elect NRA leaders less prone to compromise. The NRA is effective but can be swayed to take a harder line if they hear from the grass roots. They will not be swayed by people that sit on the sidelines and whine.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is "another pro 2nd org" and quite a reputable one. The NRA not only "publicly acknowledges" the existence of SAF but those two "pro 2nd" organizations have cooperated in actions such as suits against the city of New Orleans for an injunction to stop its gun confiscations and to retrieve the confiscated guns for their owners.

Click to expand...

ok, where and in what venue?

I get the NRA-ILA alerts just like the bulk of folks here. I've never once seen such an acknowledgement. But do tell, in this instance I would be happy to be shown to be incorrect.

I discussed this issue with a former LEO and former NRA-ILA staff member. I'll reconfirm my discussion with him. PM me and I will relay his comments to you.

Let's not turn this into 'who's is bigger' contest. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been or aspired to be a GOA member. There's no need to repeat what's already been written here.

Look at every item in the list I gave. Gun Owners of America is not in any of them. It can't work cooperatively with real "pro 2nd" groups because it depends for its very existence on attacking what they do. It's only effectiveness is as a spoiler, working through one "Urgent Alert!" after another to defeat the necessary steps by which real progress is made in the real world.

Click to expand...

Since you're in the know, maybe you can shed some light on Levy & Gura's opininion that the NRA-ILA lawyers tried to sack Parker. I've spoken to both. Their impression is not one of "willing to work with pro 2nd groups" but since you have the inside line, by all means tell us what really happened.

How about the grassroots folks who complain "the NRA supports gun control!" ? Yeah, some of those guys are, well... kinda nutty. But, you know, I've seen 2 NRA sponsored and supported (via alert and confirmed to NRA-ILA) bills here in VA that were... well... gun control. The last one was the odious SB660, the total ban on firearms, ammunition ( it may have included components ) anywhere on airport property. Prior to this bill, you were good with your permit right up to the security checkpoint.

So, does this one example prove a pattern? Heck no. But it's not as cut and dry as it has been portrayed here.

The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun forces don't attack GOA because they understand its insignificance as an opponent and benefit from its ability to divide gun owners and weaken the NRA

Click to expand...

Again, this is politics. It's a game for big boys and girls, not ones who run home crying to mommy because someone disagreed with them and called them a bad name.

I'd like to see a unified support network too, but WE'RE not unified. How can we realistically expect our paid lobbyists to be?

Vis-a-vis the NRA: the perfect is the enemy of the good. I am a Life Member, and still wish they were more hard core. However, if it weren't for the NRA we would be using atlatls, and Carolyn McCarthy would want to ban them.

Their "All Or Nothing" tactics are, politically speaking, useless. It may sooth the soul and bolster the emotions to rant, rave, and demand things in absolute terms, but it's less than worthless in the arena of public opinion.

Click to expand...

Boy it's a good thing our Founding Fathers knew better than to demand things in absolute terms. Absolutes like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sure are worthless in the arena of public opinion. They would have been much better off just compromising.

Since you're in the know, maybe you can shed some light on Levy & Gura's opininion that the NRA-ILA lawyers tried to sack Parker. I've spoken to both. Their impression is not one of "willing to work with pro 2nd groups" but since you have the inside line, by all means tell us what really happened.

Click to expand...

My guess is part of it is that they think it is too big of a risk to take and would prefer to find a less risky approach. There is also the not invented here problem, and the problem that no advocacy organization wants someone else poaching in "their" territory.

I have never been a big fan of trying to get rights restored through the court system. The record is very spotty on court decisions on individual rights, with it going in the wrong direction more often than not.

Even a favorable ruling is probably going to be very narrowly tailored, and is going to require dozens, maybe hundreds of court cases to sort out. People that think this is the Holy Grail of the 2A are fooling themselves. In fact, in some respects, even a favorable ruling could end up being a negative in the long run because it could fool us into lesser efforts at the state level where real progress has been made in most states.

Boy it's a good thing our Founding Fathers knew better than to demand things in absolute terms. Absolutes like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sure are worthless in the arena of public opinion. They would have been much better off just compromising.

Click to expand...

You think the Constitution isn't a product of hammering out compromises? Please, go back and study the history of the Constitution and the BOR.

K

You think the Constitution isn't a product of hammering out compromises? Please, go back and study the history of the Constitution and the BOR.

Click to expand...

Actually, my quote was from the Declaration of Independence, and the lack of compromise was with Britain, not among the colonies.

But thanks for the attempted history lesson.

I saw it as a break for the veterans that had their names in the system. Requiring adjudication should wipe the slate clean as far as that group goes.

If there was any doubt remaining, Josh Sugarman getting wrapped around the axle took care of it. If he doesn't like it, it's gotta be good. My benefactor card and pin showed up in the mail last night.

I let my GOA membership lapse. Their "All Or Nothing" tactics are, politically speaking, useless. It may sooth the soul and bolster the emotions to rant, rave, and demand things in absolute terms, but it's less than worthless in the arena of public opinion. It creates the conditions that foster the problems you are trying to solve. You are, in a very real sense, creating your own problem.

Click to expand...

So, who do we get to throw under the bus this time in the name of "compromise"? And then when will we have to sacrifice somebody else? How long before they get to me?

The Anti's never compromise, they are just are taking small steps in a constant direction towards their ultimate goal.

That being said, I'm an NRA member and not yet a GOA or JFPO member because NRA is the most effective at the national level. But I think they give up *way* too much.

What was the ILA's position on how Jerry Kilgore attacked VCDL?

Smurfslayer, I understand the words you use but you string them together into statements that are obtuse, dim, and contradictory.

Your rhetorical question was: "Isn't it ironic that NRA-ILA won't even publicly acknowledge the existence of another pro 2nd .org, but will recognize an anti organization?" Your assertion is dense and relies on implication and insinuation, you provided no evidence to support your statement and it is simply untrue no matter how it's interpreted. I demonstrated that what you said was untrue and provided documentation for what I said. You ignore it, probably because you want to believe what you want to believe and don't like it when facts get in the way of your beliefs. There's a lot of that going around among at least some gun owners and it's certainly contagious. I don't know if it's an illness that can be cured but I tend to doubt it.

For example, I've pointed you at the New Orleans suit filed on behalf of those whose guns were confiscated. The pleadings in the New Orleans suit are public and they give the names of the plaintiffs: The National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and Buell O. Teel (one of the people directly injured by the city). There is no way those pleadings could have been filed unless the NRA did "publicly acknowledge the existence of another pro 2nd .org." In fact the attorneys for both organizations signed the pleadings. It would be more than a little crackpot to think that the SAF lawyer stuck the names of the NRA and its attorney of record on them without their knowledge. The only way those pleadings could have been filed is if the NRA did publicly acknowledge the existence of SAF and if the two organizations cooperated in those public proceedings. They did. Your point is factually wrong and silly too.

While you ignore all the other evidence I presented to demonstrate that you were wrong, you insist that the only kind of public acknowledgment that you consider relevant are the NRA alerts. Here's the link to a typical NRA Action Alert, this one dated 09/09/2005. It includes the NRA's public acknowledgment of a great many "pro 2nd" organizations.

But you also ignore that evidence because you insist further that the only relevant NRA alerts are those that you have, and if the NRA doesn't acknowledge another "pro 2nd" organization in them it isn't relevant. And there we encounter an impasse: who but you could know what you have and, frankly, who but you would even care.

You make silly arguments to support a silly point that in the end is both wrong and irrational. You're actually criticizing an organization for informing its own members of its own activities, which is what any organization should do and must do. I hope that by the time you graduate from college and go on to law school you learn at least a little about these matters so you don't continue to substitute your beliefs for knowledge and judgment.

Take a step back from your keyboard and reread this statement you just made in the throes of passionate virtue offended:

Again, this is politics. It's a game for big boys and girls, not ones who run home crying to mommy because someone disagreed with them and called them a bad name.

Click to expand...

In time you might see that it's laughable and, really, quite funny. Your argument puts you in the position of being among the little kids who run home crying to mommy because they didn't get the attention they wanted. That statement you just made is foolishly funny in the light of the point you argued in your initial post, because your point there is that the NRA isn't giving the attention you want.

In fact, though, you misread what I wrote and missed its point entirely. That's understandable because what I wrote contradicted what you believe, and that's not what you want. It's just not fair.

You really should become a member of Gun Owners of America, though, and I'm surprised to see you say that you aren't one. Lots of gun owners are disagreeing with them now and calling them bad names, enough to satisfy even the most chronically disaffected and persistently unhappy gun owners of our great country, whose founding fathers would have done all sorts of crazy stuff and didn't even bother to try negotiating compromises with that awful King George III during all the years they actively pursued compromises with King George III.

So, who do we get to throw under the bus this time in the name of "compromise"? And then when will we have to sacrifice somebody else? How long before they get to me?

The Anti's never compromise, they are just are taking small steps in a constant direction towards their ultimate goal.

That being said, I'm an NRA member and not yet a GOA or JFPO member because NRA is the most effective at the national level. But I think they give up *way* too much.

Click to expand...

Attaboy. Never compromise. Compromises are for sissies, traitors, and married people who recognize that the only way people can live together is through constant compromise.

Always remember that anyone who disagrees with you is The Enemy. The world is full of The Enemy and it conspires against you. You must suppress The Enemy and neutralize it so it can't keep disagreeing with you.

I am your friend, though, so I agree with everything you think. And if you change your mind I agree with that too. You have only friends here. We all think the same way, which is always the way you think at the time you think it. No compromises for us. Never. We are not even interested in compromises that might help us. Those compromises are evil because they are compromises. The founding fathers never compromised, which is why they devised a political system that encourages and requires compromises. They did not want people to vote, because voting imposes the need to persuade voters and persuasion dictates negotiation and compromise. But negotiation and compromises are bad.

I'm sure that many other gun owners will be interested in these plans for making their very own tinfoil beanies. It's easy, it's fun, and you can add a sticker to identify you as a member of the gun owners organization that best supports your thinking at every moment. It works! Wear it and you can block out any thinking that doesn't agree with yours. If you can't receive other people's thoughts there's never a need to compromise or negotiate with them. So cut them off at the source with a tinfoil beanie. Wear one of these and you won't need to belong to the NRA. It, uh, compromises and negotiates. No doubt about it.

How many members has the NRA gained by bashing like that?

How many members has the NRA gained by bashing like that?

Click to expand...

How many members will GOA lose over this whole deal? Me for one, can't imagine I'm alone.

Sorry, I was referring to the posts above mine.